November 10, 2010

George Bush, speaking to Rush Limbaugh — transcript, audio — consistently expressed the idea that a President should handle himself with dignity and concentrate on doing what he thinks is right:

RUSH: ... What's it like to sit in the Oval Office, or wherever you happen to be as president and believe the people are tired of you, and do you want to do anything about that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: ... [Y]ou know, sometimes if you're president and people are tired of you, you just have to soldier on....

RUSH: ... In my lifetime, I don't recall a political party ever opposing their own country at war, seeking a defeat as the Democrats were. I mean Harry Reid was out there, Mr. President, "This war is lost."

PRESIDENT BUSH: ... You can disagree with the policy, disagree with whether we should work to establish democracy in Iraq after we liberated it, but to condemn soldiers heading into mission to a lost cause is just, you know, is inexcusable, as far as I was concerned.

RUSH: Why didn't you do more about it? Why didn't you comment more about it at the time?...

PRESIDENT BUSH: ... I do believe in the institution of the presidency, and I didn't think it was right then, I still don't think it's right to engage in name-calling if you're the president of the United States. I was focused on the mission... I still feel very strongly that's the way a president ought to conduct himself.

RUSH: Well, some of the people in your administration, Karl Rove, have said in hindsight that they think -- maybe Karl is speaking for himself, certainly other people in the administration -- should have done more to defend you and the administration against these attacks....

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's right. Now, Karl feels that way. I read his book and recommend it, he'll be happy from me to hear. And, yeah, I mean Karl felt like we shoulda punched back harder. I can't remember if he was referring to I shoulda punched back harder or we shoulda punched back harder. I wasn't gonna punch back because, again, I think the office of the presidency is precious. It's an institution that needs to be strengthened and getting into a verbal mud fight with people, in my judgment, demeans the office. And so I chose not to do that....

... You know, and eventually the truth wins out, and this book is an attempt to set the record straight from my perspective.

RUSH: Is that your faith speaking, "the truth will out"?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Do I think that? Yeah, I do.

I'm hearing the Sermon on the Mount in that: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." And:

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you....

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 2But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Obviously, the phrase "punch back harder"— which Bush introduces — is a reference to Obama, so there is an implied attack on Obama for fighting like a politician while he is President. And yet, Obama too resists defending himself as much as some people would like.

I try to put myself in his shoes, try to imagine myself president of the United States, and in my mind, I'm doing everything I'm doing for the benefit of this country. If it's a terror attack that I'm responding to with military policy, it's to keep the country safe. If I'm coming up with an economic policy, Social Security reform, it is to benefit the people of this country. And to have that maligned, be personally maligned, I could not -- if I were inclined not to sully the office and not respond to it personally, I would not silence my administration. I would turn 'em loose. It's too serious. It matters too much. I would make sure the people that voted for me understood that they had a leader, but he was hell-bent on not sullying the office of the presidency. He told me that I can't tell you how many times, and to this day it's tough for me to understand, even now. We've got an economy unlike any since the Great Depression. He's being blamed for it. The Democrat Party and the media are blaming him and he's content to let long-term history be the judge of this. Now, I know that his faith in God is what gives him the comfort and the confidence to do this, but I would not be able to stand mute about it like he is.

108 comments:

President Bush seems to be comporting himself very well now that he's on the media circuit. I still have some major problem with things done by his administration, but, frankly, I would have liked to have had this GW rather than the one we were used to.

I'll check out the audio from this interview later today. One thing that really impressed me to the point of near shock was how well the Oprah interview went. I was fully expecting the sidelong glances, the ironic tones, etc, but if you listen to the audio, she seems almost giddy. I was pleasantly surprised at the volume of the audience's applause when he was brought out as well.

And yet, Obama too resists defending himself as much as some people would like.

That's an interesting sentence.

1) Obama has NEVER resisted "defending himself." This IS the guy who told people to punch back harder. He's also the guy who has called his detractors bitter clingers too scared and/or stupid to understand him. Does the "Party of No" or that stupid Republicans sipping Slurpees thing ring any bells?

Maybe that's the REAL meaning of the sentence. That Obama doesn't defend: he ATTACKS. He attacks business. He attacks critics. He attacks anyone and everything not bowing down in worship.

2) "as some people would like." Let's face it. Those "some people" wouldn't be happy unless Obama was on the evening news every night actually cursing and/or slapping Republicans in the face. These are the same people who are the chief proponents of the "failure of messaging" talking points which have become such a joke.

And yet, Obama too resists defending himself as much as some people would like.

Some people prefer their happy fantasies, where the liberal agenda hasn't been a disaster, it's just been thwarted by evil Republicans. A LaLa Land where Obama's failure really has been to not explain himself enough.

I'm sorry. But Obama considers half the population to be the ENEMY. He sends out his "Organizing for America" and "Working Families Party" and ACORN stormtroopers by the busload to attack whoever he deems the target du jour.

He makes this choice, not to be the President of the United States, but to be the President of the Democratic Party, the activist in chief - and his whole life is about campaigning, the only thing he knows how to do.

Dubya is and was a good man, but he had some lousy advice in his second term, Dr Rove, in particular (I believe immigration reform was his idea to win the Hispanic vote). He's showing the Demos what a President looks like. God knows, it's been so long since they've had a real one.

RUSH: ... In my lifetime, I don't recall a political party ever opposing their own country at war, seeking a defeat as the Democrats were. I mean Harry Reid was out there, Mr. President, "This war is lost.

Our most decorated Marine and one of my all time favorite characters is Chesty Puller: "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time."

Back in the day if you went through USMC boot camp everything was Chesty this and Chesty that.

Lore on the guy is that he once stood up in a blazing gunfight and lit his pipe while glaring at the enemy.

Puller was also known to wait until all his men had been fed at the chow hall before he'd take his tray through the line.

It's an institution that needs to be strengthened and getting into a verbal mud fight with people, in my judgment, demeans the office. And so I chose not to do that....

It is this attitude that is the difference between the two Presidents.

One has respect for the Office and for the Dignity of the Office. Depsite being called names and under constant criticism, Bush maintained his dignity and acted as an adult.

The other, Obama, stoops to name calling, fighting with talk show hosts, flipping opponents a juvenille middle finger. Obama has no respect for the Office, for the Country or for anyone else and acts like a spoiled child.

Some people prefer their happy fantasies, where the liberal agenda hasn't been a disaster

Yes, that would include Obama & Pelosi.

"What is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious -- a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies -- I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed to," Obama said. "We thought it was necessary, but I'm sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach."..."No regrets," Pelosi told ABC's Diane Sawyer. "Should we have been talking about it more, and working on it less -- that's a question." But, she said, "Nine and a half percent unemployment is a very eclipsing event."

He failed. He shamed the office and the country and betrayed his oath of office. Of course, in this he is joined by a fraternity of fellow Presidents, living and dead, past and present.

The implication therein, Robert, is that you believe you would have done better. Not only do you claim to never be wrong, but you appear to have a heady sense of self-worth. I'm not trying to pick a verbal fencing match with you. I'm simply pointing out that in order to make such abject declarations of another's performance, you have to be pretty secure in your ability to surpass it in the same circumstances.

To the contrary...one does not have to be able to sing well to judge whether another is singing badly, (although it helps one to hear all the ways a bad singer is bad, I'm sure).

I am not qualified to be President, and I would not want the job, but I at least would not institute a torture regime or start aggressive wars or otherwise violate--rather than preserve and protect--the Constitution. (Here you see one of my primary disqualifications for the job...my queasiness about engaging in criminal acts.)

I do not take issue that ACORN and ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA and the WORKING FAMILIES PARTY exist, but the crazy person's characterization of them as "stormtroopers" that Obama "sent...out" to do some sort of horrible unspecified boogity-boogity to some equally unspecified somebody.

My memory of Bush is positive as to the manner he used to communicate with the people, not that the Media ever quit demeaning him for whatever. My strong anger at Bush is that he so easily allowed China to remove nearly all industrial production from the USA just to get a shot at the cheap labor and customers in China, all for the benefit of his Rich Investor pals. The rest of us will soon be on welfare along with the 50% of Americans that already are on welfare. As for the other similarly inclined Bush brother who is aiming to take back the family's Presidency, I say NEVER AGAIN.

To the contrary...one does not have to be able to sing well to judge whether another is singing badly, (although it helps one to hear all the ways a bad singer is bad, I'm sure).

To the contrary...one can "judge" internally whether you like a singer or not...it's purely subjective, after all, but to go public and go point by point about why someone's singing is awful requires you have to a technical aptitude yourself or risk, as I say you do here, being labeled a crank with no basis for critique in the first place beyond, "I don't like you", which is, again, purely subjective.

As singing has nothing to do with Constitutionality or illegality, your analogy fails.

If I hire someone to build my house and they do a crappy job, I'm going to point it out to them and anyone else who cares to listen. It is not necessary for me to be able to do a better job of building my own house.

There's a current story about a researcher at Duke, Dr. Potti, who apparently falsified research results leading to potential harm for cancer patients enrolled in a clinical trial. It is not necessary that I be able to cure cancer to point out that Dr. Potti is a schmuck.

"My strong anger at Bush is that he so easily allowed China to remove nearly all industrial production from the USA just to get a shot at the cheap labor and customers in China...."

Bush--and his predecessors and successor--didn't "allow" China to "remove" industrial production from America...our government policies have promoted and made it profitable for American companies to send industrial production and thousands of jobs to China, and other countries where labor is cheap.

China isn't getting away with anything, isn't snatching our work and jobs away; our businesses are happily sending them there as fast as they can.

Bush--and his predecessors and successor--didn't "allow" China to "remove" industrial production from America...our government policies have promoted and made it profitable for American companies to send industrial production and thousands of jobs to China, and other countries where labor is cheap.

Oh, Great and All-Knowing Kookie, could it be that you have failed to notice your own wisdom?

In China, labor is cheap !

Oh, Great Kookie, could it be that the cheapness of the labor itself is the cause of industry locating in China?

Sometimes, Oh Great Kookie, your wisdom and superior morality are so great that I believe you are blinded by your own light.

And so all I said was younger workers ought to have a chance to set aside some of their money in an account that earns a better rate of return than their money in the Social Security trust fund.

A better rate of return? By investing in what? Every dollar invested in the DJIA when Bush was inaugurated was sorth only 76 cents when Obama was inaugurated. The power of compound interest was negative.

That's why mortgage backed securities were so popular. That was the best rate of return you could (in theory anyway) get.

Hey, would Bush have invested workers' money in RMBS, or in derivatives?

Um...yeah. And it's cheap in other countries too. That's why jobs formerly done here are going to China...and other countries.

11/10/10 10:40 AM"

Hmm my new Lexus was built by very low wage Japanese slaves. My wife's Audi was built by equally impoverished German peons.

Most of the jobs exported are not due to wages but rather to regulation, taxation or permitting issues.The Europeans are socialist in many areas but they generally don't let wooly ideas get in the way of their exports. Neither do the Canadians or the Japanese.There is a lesson here but it falls on deaf ears in DC and in the state capitols.

Because for younger workers SS will have a NEGATIVE rate of return FLS. That’s right, if they “invest” in SS they will receive LESS than they put in…IF you have invested in 1980, and invested consistently for the last 30 years, though your CURRENT retirement value would be less than it was in 2006, it would still be far in excess of your investment in SS.

Just as in CA, anyone who had a home in the 1990’s is better off today than in the ‘90’s, IF you didn’t take out the “equity”. Sure your house is only 60% of its 2006 value, but that value is in excess, even of inflation, of where it was in 1996. Meaning that if you didn’t take out a second mortgage, even with the housing “collapse” you’re STILL better off.

Cook...You and I agree here that the US government of DEMs and RINOs did whatever the Rich Investor Guys wanted done with a terrible lack of foresight. Once every production facility has gone away to better benefit investors in a world currency stream, who will we re-train Americans to do that management and production work 20 years later when China won't sell cheap anymore? The Rich Investors don't care because they will own their assets globally as they now do. The geographic model of the Nation then become irrelevant...and those pesky voting rights of American citizens not under media mind control will become the enemy that is next attacked. Soros through Obama is trying to warn us to surrender and not fight this. But the Sarah Palin lead Tea party is saying that it has not yet begun to fight.

This was the demand of the elders of the newly formed nation of Israel when their leader Samuel grew old and his sons as judges "turned away after dishonest gain, accepted bribes and perverted justice"

The warning that followed still applies. "This is the way the kind of king you're talking about operates. He'll take your sons and make soldiers of them—chariotry, cavalry, infantry, regimented in battalions and squadrons. He'll put some to forced labor on his farms, plowing and harvesting, and others to making either weapons of war or chariots in which he can ride in luxury. He'll put your daughters to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He'll conscript your best fields, vineyards, and orchards and hand them over to his special friends. He'll tax your harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. Your prize workers and best animals he'll take for his own use. He'll lay a tax on your flocks and you'll end up no better than slaves. The day will come when you will cry in desperation because of this king you so much want for yourselves."

What king or president in past history has been able to conduct himself with dignity, lead with integrity, walk humbly, love mercy, seek justice and enjoy the respect and honor of the majority of his subjects and constituents?

Several thousands of years of on the job practice have not made the task easier or the consequences less demanding.

The root for the word precious is price. Bush is on the mark in noting the office of the presidency to be "of great price, valuable, costly and dear."

The thought had occurred to me. However, I try not to think about it because it conjures up the 40-year-old, pasty, potato chip-covered lap, ep33n geek thing and a woefully unhealthy psyche at a minimum.

Look at the huge stretch of time from January 1965 to January 1980, where a dollar invested at the beginning was worth less at the end. I don't think we'll see the boom times of the Clinton administration again.

"traditional guy said.....My strong anger at Bush is that he so easily allowed China to remove nearly all industrial production from the USA just to get a shot at the cheap labor and customers in China, all for the benefit of his Rich Investor pals.'

It's pretty easy to blame Bush or Pelosi or Congress or business for the rush to China based goods. But in fact it is the US consumer who has the overwhemling role in this.

I make clothes that are all made in the USA. So they cost more than those made in China. Chinese factories have approached me with great deals. But I made a choice too keep the jobs here. For a lot of reasons not least quality control. But every day I have a bunch of people who will not buy my stuff which is in fact reasonable instead of cheaper stuff made in China that will fall apart in a couple of months. Consumers love Wal-Mart and K-Mart shopping and don't care about where it comes from. If they were willing to buy American, well there would be a lot more jobs back here in the USA.

Look at the huge stretch of time from January 1965 to January 1980, where a dollar invested at the beginning was worth less at the end. I don't think we'll see the boom times of the Clinton administration again.

Are you citing money only invested in stocks/bonds/gold etc or are you confusing the commercial value of the dollar at 1965 to that in 1980? Those are two different things.

Troop, I used to buy mens shirts that were union made in USA. Then mens shirts that were made in USA. Then mens shirts that were made in USA of foreign components. Then mens shirts that were made in Northern Marianas of US and foreign components. But then I gave up.

Mens shirts are tough fls. I have enought trouble making ladies clothes. The attention to detail is very rough. It is so easy to cut corners which is why there is so much crap out there. We can only do what we can do. But what we do is all made in the USA!!!

"Could it be that U.S. labor unions demanding ever higher wages and benefits also has something to do with this equation?"

Given how few union workers remain in America and how powerless they've become...no, absolutely not at all.

And why shouldn't American workers, union or not, demand ever higher wages and benefits? Are we slaves? Should we accept shit when the people profiting by the labor of working people grow ever richer?

As profits go up, so should worker wages and benfits. As profits go down and wages are frozen or workers are laid off, so should upper management ranks be culled and the salaries and benefits of those not fired be cut with equal savagery.

Should we accept shit when the people profiting by the labor of working people grow ever richer?

You have to take what you can get when you don't increase your skill set or your skills are of less demand. You don't have to accept anything. You can go get another job at another employer if you don't like what you're currently dealing with. As this is outside most people's comfort zone, it's "hard" to do (especially these days), but no where near impossible.

TroopThat invite to Lambeau was for real. My friend has box seats, I'm sure I can secure with some notice. The Giants game is the day after Christmas, that might be tough. Would be fun though. You could fly into MLKE, and we could catch a matinee at a tittie bar on the drive up to Green Bay. Good times, I'm tellin ya.

I really want to do it Garage but it will have to be next season. I am just so busy that I haven't even had time to keep up with my blogging!

But I definitely want to try to set something up next year. I am serious about the trunk show thing. That is going to happen and n a big way. So I want to bring my traveling circus to Wisconsin. I hear you have good cheese.

You and MadisonMan and Michael H will have to work security though. I don't want the evil blogger lady crashing the party. She hates chubby people. Just sayn'

Given how few union workers remain in America and how powerless they've become...no, absolutely not at all.

Kookie, you are so woefully ignorant, for somebody who is basically the second coming of Christ.

My mother worked in a union factory, where she made a very good salary and benefits.

Every year, the union demanded more money, better working conditions and less work to do.

My mother worked there for 15 years, until the factory packed up and moved to Asia.

That's one of the primary reasons why "... few union workers remain in America..."

My mother is painfully aware, and vocally angry, that her union killed the golden goose.

And why shouldn't American workers, union or not, demand ever higher wages and benefits? Are we slaves? Should we accept shit when the people profiting by the labor of working people grow ever richer?

Who's going to pay for ever higher wages and benefits? You and the other consumers.

The notion that Americans could possibly be called slaves is so stupid that only a Godlike innocent like you would not be embarrassed to say it.

People profiting by the labor of working people and growing ever richer is what gives people the motivation to make capital investments so that those working people can make ever higher wages and benefits.

Your ideas have been tried in that great and sainted laboratory, the Soviet Union.

In practice, it is your ideas that lead to slavery and genocide, which is why I keep trying to kick you in the ass. Your ideals are criminal in practice, but they sound great in the abstract.

The 20th century was a heavy handed lesson in the abject horror that your wonderful ideals create. Those ideals make you feel like a saint, and they lead to starvation, poverty and genocide.

True. But I'll take my chances with the free market system and some personal control over the government's historical performance.

Look at the huge stretch of time from January 1965 to January 1980, where a dollar invested at the beginning was worth less at the end.

You are making a completely false comparison.

We are discussing allowing people to contribute some of their social security contributions over time. NOT all at one time in a lump sum at the beginning of a period.

In FACT. If you are dollar cost averaging over a period such as you discuss, in the end you will achieve a return based on the average of investments. Often, those contributions which you invested in a declining market, will out perform those invested in a constantly increasing market.

Try again.

Furthermore, you are just plain wrong or purposely deceptive.

DJIA 1-11-65 883.22DJIA 1-10-85 1223.50

Clearly a gain.

Even a Bank Certificate of Deposit, will beat the Government's performance

fls: Anyone who invested solely in the DJIA should have checked the SS option box inasmuch as they would have been completely stupid to have done so. A more balanced investment program would have done better. And by the way, the 76 cents you refer to is 76 cents that could be left to your children or heirs. No so much the SS "money" you have.

As to men's shirts there have been a number of start up makers of high quality shirt makers in the last ten years.

"The notion that Americans could possibly be called slaves is so stupid that only a Godlike innocent like you would not be embarrassed to say it."

I didn't say it...you did, when you decried union labor for expecting their wages and benefits to improve over time along with the fortunes of their employers, the implication of which is that you think workers should just take what's given without complaint, even when the decrease in their income is reflected in the increase in the incomes of those who profit by the workers' labor.

I didn't say it...you did, when you decried union labor for expecting their wages and benefits to improve over time along with the fortunes of their employers, the implication of which is that you think workers should just take what's given without complaint, even when the decrease in their income is reflected in the increase in the incomes of those who profit by the workers' labor.

First, I didn't decry "...union labor for expecting their wages and benefits to improve over time along with the fortunes of their employers..." because I never said that the fortune of the employer improved. It didn't. The fortune of the employer declined in line with the workers' demands. Thus, they beat it.

Do you know anything about business?

Apparently not.

Do you think that businesses just always make more money?

What makes you think that these issues are decided by fiat? Who issues that fiat?

Has anybody ever explained to you that consumers will only pay a certain amount, say, for a box of cereal? When that amount is exceeded, what do you think happens?

Your language makes it clear that you believe in a command economy where somebody issues fiats that set prices and wages.

I told you, that's already been tried and it failed. It was called the Soviet Union.

Do you know anything about the history of the 20th century? You are not a morally superior person. You are an advocate of slavery, starvation and despotism. This is the result in reality of your command economy.

Is there any possibility that you can get that through your thick skull? Your fine words that make you feel so holy have been tried.

The result was slavery, starvation and despotism. You believe in a criminal ideology.

All to often we attribute "good" times to governmental policies when in fact they had little to do with it.

The rate of growth experienced in the 1990's had little if anything to do with government policy. Growth was driven by a radical change in the production function that dramatically lowered cost. The IT revolution drove an investment boom that changed how we didn't business. If you want to credit anybody for this economic boom it is the much maligned Bill Gates. [Steve Jobs and Apple had nothing to do with it.]

National demographics also played a major role in low umemployment and consumption. The almost empty generation X required less overall job creation to absorb new workers and the Boomers entered their maximum sustained earning years. That latter drove the demand for everything from new cars to furniture to baby related items.

The deceleration in growth in first decade of the 20th Century happened because the marginal productivity of IT declined as the economy had fully tranistioned to the IT driven production function.

Market economies are driven by forces well beyond the control of government. Government's screw things up, not make things go.

Ah...so Cook's a pragmatist and not principled. That doesn't jive with your comments about your own performance visa vi a Robert Cook administration way, way upthread. Those were principled and have no room for the co-existence of "depraved" mindsets of any kind, do they?

I think Bush really means this, he thinks the mudslinging demeans the office.

I also thinks he means it when he says you should not try to be popular.

There was a time, before cable news and internet, when people did not become so immersed in politics. It was not necessary to agree with a President's every policy or move. In fact, no one expected to. I think that has changed.